Search Results

Search found 12089 results on 484 pages for 'rule of three'.

Page 2/484 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Which knowledge base/rule-based inference engine to choose for real time Runway incursion prevention

    - by Piligrim
    Hello, we are designing a project that would listen to dialog between airport controllers and pilots to prevent runway incursions (eg. one airplane is taking off while other is crossing the runway). Our professor wants us to use Jena for knowledge base (or anything else but it should be some sort of rule-based engine). Inference is not the main thing in Jena and there's not much documentation and examples of this. So we need an engine that would get messages from pilots as input and output possible risks of incursion or any other error in message protocol. It should be easy to write rules, and should be easy to provide engine with real time data. I image it something like this: A pilot sends a message that he lands on some runway, the system remembers that the runway is busy and no one should cross it If someone is given an instruction to cross this runway, the engine should fire a rule that something is wrong When the pilot sends a message that he left the runway and goes to the gate, the system clears the runway and lets other planes to use it. So is Jena, or prolog or any other rules engine suitable for this? I mean it is suitable, but do we really need to use it? I asked the prof. if we could just keep state of the runway and use some simple checks based on messages we receive and he said that it is not scalable and we need the knowledge base. Can someone give me any advise on which approach to use for this system? If you recommend k.b., then which one should we use? The project is written in java. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Mail Rule to Run Applescript Not Working?

    - by William Andy Hainline
    Question for my fellow AppleScripters. I have the following script which runs just fine if you run it in AppleScript Editor or Script Debugger, but that won't run at all if you try to run it from a Mail rule. The script is correctly placed in ~/Library/Application Scripts/com.apple.mail, and shows up in the "Run AppleScript" menu in the Mail rule, but simply refuses to work when new mail arrives. on perform_mail_action(info) tell application "Mail" set theMessages to |SelectedMessages| of info repeat with thisMessage in theMessages set AppleScript's text item delimiters to {""} set thisSender to sender of thisMessage as string set quotepos to offset of "\"" in thisSender if (quotepos is not 0) then set thisSender to (text items (quotepos + 1) through -1) ¬ of thisSender as string set quotepos to offset of "\"" in thisSender if (quotepos is not 0) then set thisSender to (text items 1 through (quotepos - 1)) ¬ of thisSender as string end if else set atpos to offset of "@" in thisSender if (atpos is not 0) then set thisSender to (text items 1 through (atpos - 1)) ¬ of thisSender as string end if set brkpos to offset of "<" in thisSender if (brkpos is not 0) then set thisSender to (text items (brkpos + 1) through -1) ¬ of thisSender as string end if end if tell application "Finder" to say "Mail from " & thisSender end repeat end tell end perform_mail_action Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • JUnit Rule TemporaryFolder

    - by Jeff Storey
    I'm creating a TemporaryFolder using the @Rule annotation in JUnit 4.7. I've tried to create a new folder that is a child of the temp folder using tempFolder.newFolder("someFolder") in the @Before (setup) method of my test. It seems as though the temporary folder gets initialized after the setup method runs, meaning I can't use the temporary folder in the setup method. Is this correct (and predictable) behavior? thanks, Jeff

    Read the article

  • Apache Rewrite rule confusion

    - by Lee
    I'm trying to convert a simple url (below) in to a blog-style url, but not quite sure how to do it, all of my other rules are working fine, but I can't seem to figure this one out. URL I want to convert: http://www.website.com/myblog.php?id=1&title=My+blog+title URL I want it to create: http://www.website.com/1/my-blog-title What should the rule be? Any assistance appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • URL Rewrite – Multiple domains under one site. Part II

    - by OWScott
    I believe I have it … I’ve been meaning to put together the ultimate outgoing rule for hosting multiple domains under one site.  I finally sat down this week and setup a few test cases, and created one rule to rule them all.  In Part I of this two part series, I covered the incoming rule necessary to host a site in a subfolder of a website, while making it appear as if it’s in the root of the site.  Part II won’t work without applying Part I first, so if you haven’t read it, I encourage you to read it now. However, the incoming rule by itself doesn’t address everything.  Here’s the problem … Let’s say that we host www.site2.com in a subfolder called site2, off of masterdomain.com.  This is the same example I used in Part I.   Using an incoming rewrite rule, we are able to make a request to www.site2.com even though the site is really in the /site2 folder.  The gotcha comes with any type of path that ASP.NET generates (I’m sure other scripting technologies could do the same too).  ASP.NET thinks that the path to the root of the site is /site2, but the URL is /.  See the issue?  If ASP.NET generates a path or a redirect for us, it will always add /site2 to the URL.  That results in a path that looks something like www.site2.com/site2.  In Part I, I mentioned that you should add a condition where “{PATH_INFO} ‘does not match’ /site2”.  That allows www.site2.com/site2 and www.site2.com to both function the same.  This allows the site to always work, but if you want to hide /site2 in the URL, you need to take it one step further. One way to address this is in your code.  Ultimately this is the best bet.  Ruslan Yakushev has a great article on a few considerations that you can address in code.  I recommend giving that serious consideration.  Additionally, if you have upgraded to ASP.NET 3.5 SP1 or greater, it takes care of some of the references automatically for you. However, what if you inherit an existing application?  Or you can’t easily go through your existing site and make the code changes?  If this applies to you, read on. That’s where URL Rewrite 2.0 comes in.  With URL Rewrite 2.0, you can create an outgoing rule that will remove the /site2 before the page is sent back to the user.  This means that you can take an existing application, host it in a subfolder of your site, and ensure that the URL never reveals that it’s in a subfolder. Performance Considerations Performance overhead is something to be mindful of.  These outbound rules aren’t simply changing the server variables.  The first rule I’ll cover below needs to parse the HTML body and pull out the path (i.e. /site2) on the way through.  This will add overhead, possibly significant if you have large pages and a busy site.  In other words, your mileage may vary and you may need to test to see the impact that these rules have.  Don’t worry too much though.  For many sites, the performance impact is negligible. So, how do we do it? Creating the Outgoing Rule There are really two things to keep in mind.  First, ASP.NET applications frequently generate a URL that adds the /site2 back into the URL.  In addition to URLs, they can be in form elements, img elements and the like.  The goal is to find all of those situations and rewrite it on the way out.  Let’s call this the ‘URL problem’. Second, and similarly, ASP.NET can send a LOCATION redirect that causes a redirect back to another page.  Again, ASP.NET isn’t aware of the different URL and it will add the /site2 to the redirect.  Form Authentication is a good example on when this occurs.  Try to password protect a site running from a subfolder using forms auth and you’ll quickly find that the URL becomes www.site2.com/site2 again.  Let’s term this the ‘redirect problem’. Solving the URL Problem – Outgoing Rule #1 Let’s create a rule that removes the /site2 from any URL.  We want to remove it from relative URLs like /site2/something, or absolute URLs like http://www.site2.com/site2/something.  Most URLs that ASP.NET creates will be relative URLs, but I figure that there may be some applications that piece together a full URL, so we might as well expect that situation. Let’s get started.  First, create a new outbound rule.  You can create the rule within the /site2 folder which will reduce the performance impact of the rule.  Just a reminder that incoming rules for this situation won’t work in a subfolder … but outgoing rules will. Give it a name that makes sense to you, for example “Outgoing – URL paths”. Precondition.  If you place the rule in the subfolder, it will only run for that site and folder, so there isn’t need for a precondition.  Run it for all requests.  If you place it in the root of the site, you may want to create a precondition for HTTP_HOST = ^(www\.)?site2\.com$. For the Match section, there are a few things to consider.  For performance reasons, it’s best to match the least amount of elements that you need to accomplish the task.  For my test cases, I just needed to rewrite the <a /> tag, but you may need to rewrite any number of HTML elements.  Note that as long as you have the exclude /site2 rule in your incoming rule as I described in Part I, some elements that don’t show their URL—like your images—will work without removing the /site2 from them.  That reduces the processing needed for this rule. Leave the “matching scope” at “Response” and choose the elements that you want to change. Set the pattern to “^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)”.  Make sure to replace ‘site2’ with your subfolder name in both places.  Yes, I realize this is a pretty messy looking rule, but it handles a few situations.  This rule will handle the following situations correctly: Original Rewritten using {R:1}{R:2} http://www.site2.com/site2/default.aspx http://www.site2.com/default.aspx http://www.site2.com/folder1/site2/default.aspx Won’t rewrite since it’s a sub-sub folder /site2/default.aspx /default.aspx site2/default.aspx /default.aspx /folder1/site2/default.aspx Won’t rewrite since it’s a sub-sub folder. For the conditions section, you can leave that be. Finally, for the rule, set the Action Type to “Rewrite” and set the Value to “{R:1}{R:2}”.  The {R:1} and {R:2} are back references to the sections within parentheses.  In other words, in http://domain.com/site2/something, {R:1} will be http://domain.com and {R:2} will be /something. If you view your rule from your web.config file (or applicationHost.config if it’s a global rule), it should look like this: <rule name="Outgoing - URL paths" enabled="true"> <match filterByTags="A" pattern="^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> Solving the Redirect Problem Outgoing Rule #2 The second issue that we can run into is with a client-side redirect.  This is triggered by a LOCATION response header that is sent to the client.  Forms authentication is a common example.  To reproduce this, password protect your subfolder and watch how it redirects and adds the subfolder path back in. Notice in my test case the extra paths: http://site2.com/site2/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fsite2%2fdefault.aspx I want to remove /site2 from both the URL and the ReturnUrl querystring value.  For semi-readability, let’s do this in 2 separate rules, one for the URL and one for the querystring. Create a second rule.  As with the previous rule, it can be created in the /site2 subfolder.  In the URL Rewrite wizard, select Outbound rules –> “Blank Rule”. Fill in the following information: Name response_location URL Precondition Don’t set Match: Matching Scope Server Variable Match: Variable Name RESPONSE_LOCATION Match: Pattern ^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*) Conditions Don’t set Action Type Rewrite Action Properties {R:1}{R:2} It should end up like so: <rule name="response_location URL"> <match serverVariable="RESPONSE_LOCATION" pattern="^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> Outgoing Rule #3 Outgoing Rule #2 only takes care of the URL path, and not the querystring path.  Let’s create one final rule to take care of the path in the querystring to ensure that ReturnUrl=%2fsite2%2fdefault.aspx gets rewritten to ReturnUrl=%2fdefault.aspx. The %2f is the HTML encoding for forward slash (/). Create a rule like the previous one, but with the following settings: Name response_location querystring Precondition Don’t set Match: Matching Scope Server Variable Match: Variable Name RESPONSE_LOCATION Match: Pattern (.*)%2fsite2(.*) Conditions Don’t set Action Type Rewrite Action Properties {R:1}{R:2} The config should look like this: <rule name="response_location querystring"> <match serverVariable="RESPONSE_LOCATION" pattern="(.*)%2fsite2(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> It’s possible to squeeze the last two rules into one, but it gets kind of confusing so I felt that it’s better to show it as two separate rules. Summary With the rules covered in these two parts, we’re able to have a site in a subfolder and make it appear as if it’s in the root of the site.  Not only that, we can overcome automatic redirecting that is caused by ASP.NET, other scripting technologies, and especially existing applications. Following is an example of the incoming and outgoing rules necessary for a site called www.site2.com hosted in a subfolder called /site2.  Remember that the outgoing rules can be placed in the /site2 folder instead of the in the root of the site. <rewrite> <rules> <rule name="site2.com in a subfolder" enabled="true" stopProcessing="true"> <match url=".*" /> <conditions logicalGrouping="MatchAll" trackAllCaptures="false"> <add input="{HTTP_HOST}" pattern="^(www\.)?site2\.com$" /> <add input="{PATH_INFO}" pattern="^/site2($|/)" negate="true" /> </conditions> <action type="Rewrite" url="/site2/{R:0}" /> </rule> </rules> <outboundRules> <rule name="Outgoing - URL paths" enabled="true"> <match filterByTags="A" pattern="^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> <rule name="response_location URL"> <match serverVariable="RESPONSE_LOCATION" pattern="^(?:site2|(.*//[_a-zA-Z0-9-\.]*)?/site2)(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> <rule name="response_location querystring"> <match serverVariable="RESPONSE_LOCATION" pattern="(.*)%2fsite2(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" value="{R:1}{R:2}" /> </rule> </outboundRules> </rewrite> If you run into any situations that aren’t caught by these rules, please let me know so I can update this to be as complete as possible. Happy URL Rewriting!

    Read the article

  • Specification Pattern and Boolean Operator Precedence

    - by Anders Nielsen
    In our project, we have implemented the Specification Pattern with boolean operators (see DDD p 274), like so: public abstract class Rule { public Rule and(Rule rule) { return new AndRule(this, rule); } public Rule or(Rule rule) { return new OrRule(this, rule); } public Rule not() { return new NotRule(this); } public abstract boolean isSatisfied(T obj); } class AndRule extends Rule { private Rule one; private Rule two; AndRule(Rule one, Rule two) { this.one = one; this.two = two; } public boolean isSatisfied(T obj) { return one.isSatisfied(obj) && two.isSatisfied(obj); } } class OrRule extends Rule { private Rule one; private Rule two; OrRule(Rule one, Rule two) { this.one = one; this.two = two; } public boolean isSatisfied(T obj) { return one.isSatisfied(obj) || two.isSatisfied(obj); } } class NotRule extends Rule { private Rule rule; NotRule(Rule obj) { this.rule = obj; } public boolean isSatisfied(T obj) { return !rule.isSatisfied(obj); } } Which permits a nice expressiveness of the rules using method-chaining, but it doesn't support the standard operator precedence rules of which can lead to subtle errors. The following rules are not equivalent: Rule<Car> isNiceCar = isRed.and(isConvertible).or(isFerrari); Rule<Car> isNiceCar2 = isFerrari.or(isRed).and(isConvertible); The rule isNiceCar2 is not satisfied if the car is not a convertible, which can be confusing since if they were booleans isRed && isConvertible || isFerrari would be equivalent to isFerrari || isRed && isConvertible I realize that they would be equivalent if we rewrote isNiceCar2 to be isFerrari.or(isRed.and(isConvertible)), but both are syntactically correct. The best solution we can come up with, is to outlaw the method-chaining, and use constructors instead: OR(isFerrari, AND(isConvertible, isRed)) Does anyone have a better suggestion?

    Read the article

  • SEO for landing page of three different language sites

    - by Zahid
    I have three sites running under the main domain example.com/en/ example.com/ar/ example.com/ur/ And there is a main HTML landing page example.com which have some introduction in three languages and links to three sites. Now i want this landing page to have a good SEO. and i want this page to appear in search in three languages. if someone searchs Arabic it should be in results with Arabic title and description, if someone searches in English it should response in English. Is it possible? or suggest me other way to make a landing page for these sites.

    Read the article

  • Rewrite rule to redirect subdomains to subdirectories in IIS7?

    - by Mark Rogers
    Can someone give me an example rule, or process to create a rewrite rule, to redirect a subdomain to a subdirectory in IIS 7? Basically I want to rewrite http://s1.site.com to http://site.com/s1/, so that the user will see s1.site.com but will actually be hitting site.com/s1/. Specifically I'm a rewrite rookie and I want to be able to fill out the pattern, conditions, and action of the rewrite rule (basically everything) in IIS 7. If anyone could give me a good pattern string, and a Rewrite URL string, that would solve my problem immediately.

    Read the article

  • Magento 1.6.2 Catalog Price Rule Problem

    - by robgt
    My Magento system seems to have a slight issue with Catalog Price Rule application. As far as the customer is concerned, all is working perfectly. The problem is that some orders are not being displayed properly in the admin system when I look at the details. The Catalog Price rule appears to not be applied - so when we reconcile our card processor details with those in our backend Sage system, numbers are not tallying up. Magento and out Sage system say the customer paid X, but the card issuer has taken payment of Y. The payment amount is correct due to the Catalog Price Rule. The customer is always paying the correct amount, but because of some issue with Magento, I think the data is possibly not being stored correctly (stored without the catalog price rule discount amount applied). This means that when I look at an order in the admin system, the line item prices that should be affected by the catalog price rule are not - but also the prices in our backend Sage system are incorrect too. We use another piece of software to bring the data into Sage from Magento, so the data must be stored in Magento's database incorrectly somewhere as this software reads out the order information from Magento. Does anyone have any idea what is wrong here, and how it might be fixed? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • How to implement Scrum in a company with three similar web-based products

    - by user1909034
    I am somewhat familiar with the concepts and benefits of Scrum. With that in mind, I am trying to improve the failing Scrum product management structure of a company I'm now working for that has three separate B2C products, catering to the same demographic and accessible on the same website. Each product has a product owner and a unique development team (5 - 9 people in each) behind it. Given that the target audiences are similar (not sure if it should matter) and the 3 web products are similar in nature, what are the potential benefits/risks associated with merging the teams and having just one product owner/scrum master/dev team? Some questions that come to mind are: does it make sense to have 3 product owners and three distinct backlogs if your website has three distinct products? Also, if you only have one product owner, what is the best metric off which to choose who that will be?

    Read the article

  • How to track users who access an app three times a week in Google Analytics

    - by exceptionerror
    I have an IOS app that is being tracked, and I'm looking to find unique users who use the app 3 or more times a week. I am able to find users who logged three sessions in a particular week, but I'd like to find users who log three sessions every week since a given start period. Similarly, I'd like to find the number of users who use the app 1 time a week and one and 1 time a month. Is this possible through Google Analytics?

    Read the article

  • how to convert a 2d path to a 3d shape in Three.js?

    - by VirtualWorld
    i need to have the 3d of this: http://jsfiddle.net/dAdKm/ but when i use this code: var shape = new THREE.Shape(); shape.moveTo(20,20); shape.bezierCurveTo(20, 100, 150, 100, 150, 20); shape.moveTo(20,20); shape.lineTo(20, 100); shape.lineTo(150, 100); shape.lineTo(150, 20); var shape3d = shape.extrude(extrudeSettings); var shapePoints = shape.createPointsGeometry(); var shapeSpacedPoints = shape.createSpacedPointsGeometry(); var material = new THREE.MeshBasicMaterial({ color: 0x0000ff }); var shapeMesh = new THREE.Mesh(shape3d, material); the result is not same as 2d context result, why? what is the problem?

    Read the article

  • Looking for a way to draw a line between two points on a sphere in Three.js

    - by speedwell
    My app (a flight tracker) needs to draw a line between two points (cities say) on a sphere (earth) along the surface (i.e. the great circle route) using Three.js. I can think of 2 ways - (a) creating Three.js 'Line' with a set of (enough) points that I calculate manually and (b) writing the lines into the texture I use for the sphere after it's loaded but before I apply it as a texture. I can see problems with both (not even sure if (b) is possible in Three.js yet) - anyone think of a better way or have an opinion? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Sneak peek at next generation Three MiFi unit – Huawei E585

    - by Liam Westley
    Last Wednesday I was fortunate to be invited to a sneak preview of the next generation Three MiFi unit, the Huawei E585. Many thanks to all those who posted questions both via this blog or via @westleyl on Twitter. I think I made sure I asked every question posed to the MiFi product manager from Three UK, and so here's the answers you were after. What is a MiFi? For those who are wondering, a MiFi unit is a 3G broadband modem combined with a WiFi access point, providing 3G broadband data access to up to five devices simultaneously via standard WiFi connections. What is different? It appears the prime task of enhancing the MiFi was to improve the user experience and user interface, both in terms of the device hardware and within the management software to configure the device.  I think this was a very sensible decision as these areas had substantial room for improvement. Single button operation to switch on, enable WiFi and connect to 3G Improved OELD display (see below), replacing the multi coloured LEDs; including signal strength, SMS notifications, the number of connected clients and data usage Management is via a web based dashboard accessible from any web browser. This is a big win for those running Linux, Mac OS/X, iPad users and, for me, as I can now configure the device from Windows 7 64-bit Charging is via micro USB, the new standard for small USB devices; you cannot use your old charger for the new MiFi unit Automatic reconnection when regaining a signal Improved charging time, which should allow recharging of the device when in use Although subjective, the black and silver design does look more classy than the silver and white plastic of the original MiFi What is the same? Virtually the same size and weight The battery is the same unit as the original MiFi so you’ll have a handy spare if you upgrade Data plans remain the same as the current MiFi, so cheapest price for upgraders will be £49 pay as you go Still only works on 3G networks, with no fallback to GPRS or EDGE There is no specific upgrade path for existing three customers, either from dongle or from the original MiFi My opinion I think three have concentrated on the correct areas of usability and user experience rather than trying to add new whizz bang technology features which aren’t of interest to mainstream users. The one button operation and the improved device display will make it much easier to use when out and about. If the automatic reconnection proves reliable that will remove a major bugbear that I experienced the previous evening when travelling on the First Great Western line from Paddington to Didcot Parkway.  The signal was repeatedly lost as we sped through tunnels and cuttings, and without automatic reconnection is was a real pain to keep pressing the data button on the MiFi to re-establish my data connection. And finally, the web based dashboard will mean I no longer need to resort to my XP based netbook to configure the SSID and password. My everyday laptop runs Windows 7 64-bit which appears to confuse the older 3 WiFi manager which cannot locate the MiFi when connected. Links to other sites, and other images of the device Good first impressions from Ben Smith, http://thereallymobileproject.com/2010/06/3uk-announce-a-new-mifi-with-a-screen/ Also, a round up of other sneak preview posts, http://www.3mobilebuzz.com/2010/06/11/mifi-round-two-your-view/ Pictures Here is a comparison of the old MiFi device next to the new device, complete with OLED display and the Huawei logo now being a prominent feature on the front of the device. One of my fellow bloggers had a Linux based netbook, showing off the web based dashboard complete with Text messages panel to manage SMS. And finally, I never thought that my blog sub title would ever end up printed onto a cup cake, ... and here's some of the other cup cakes ...

    Read the article

  • Is there a wildcard for setting up an outlook 2007 rule

    - by mikemurf22
    I would like to create a rule that moves anything with the words "SUCCESS * BenchmarResults", where the * indicates a wildcard to a specific folder. We have multiple systems that will be put in place of the *. We have emails that will return "WARNING * BenchmarkResults" that I don't want the rule applied to. I know I can create a seperate rule for each of our systems, but I want this rule to be dymanic where I can add new benchmark emails without creatting a new rule.

    Read the article

  • Is there a wildcard for setting up an outlook 2007 rule

    - by mikemurf22
    I would like to create a rule that moves anything with the words "SUCCESS * BenchmarResults", where the * indicates a wildcard to a specific folder. We have multiple systems that will be put in place of the *. We have emails that will return "WARNING * BenchmarkResults" that I don't want the rule applied to. I know I can create a seperate rule for each of our systems, but I want this rule to be dymanic where I can add new benchmark emails without creatting a new rule.

    Read the article

  • Three Principles to Fix Your Broken Organization

    - by Michael Snow
    Everyone's organization is broken in some capacity. For some this is painfully visible both inside and outside their organization. For others, there are cracks noticed by only the keenest trained eyes used to looking for problems in the midst of perfection. We all know that there is often incredible hope in the despair of chaos and recognition of your problems is the first step on the road to recovery. Let us help you in your path to recovery. Join our very own, Christian Finn,  this Thursday (11/15), as he guides you through three important principles you can take back to the office to start the mending process. (Above Image Credits: the BEST site on the web to make fun of our organizations and ourselves: http://www.despair.com/ ) His three principles are NOT "TeamWork", "Ignorance" and "Tradition", but - before jumping lower on this blog post to click and register for the upcoming webcast - I thought it would be a good opportunity to give you a little taste of what we have to offer beyond the array of our fabulous On-Demand webcasts from our Social Business Thought Leader Webcast Series featuring Christian as the host. Instead, here's a snippet from our marketing team friends across the pond in Europe, where they hosted a Social Business Forum recently and featured Christian in a segment.  Simple. Powerful. Proven. Face it, your organization is broken. Customers are not the focus they should be. Processes are running amok. Your intranet is a ghost town. And colleagues wonder why it’s easier to get things done on the Web than at work. What’s the solution?Join us for this Webcast. Christian Finn will talk about three simple, powerful, and proven principles for improving your organization through collaboration. Each principle will be illustrated by real-world examples. Discover: How to dramatically improve workplace collaboration Why improved employee engagement creates better business results What’s the value of a fully engaged customer Time to Fix What’s Broken Register now for this Webcast—the tenth in the Oracle Social Business Thought Leaders Series. Register Now Thurs., Nov. 15, 2012 10 a.m. PT / 1 p.m. ET Presented by: Christian Finn Senior Director, Product Management, Oracle Copyright © 2012, Oracle Corporation and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Contact Us | Legal Notices and Terms of Use | Privacy Statement

    Read the article

  • How to place rooms proceduraly (rule based) on in a game word

    - by gardian06
    I am trying to design the algorithm for my level generation which is a rule driven system. I have created all the rules for the system. I have taken care to insure that all rooms make sense in a grid type setup. for example: these rooms could make this configuration The logic flow code that I have so far Door{ Vector3 position; POD orient; // 5 possible values (up is not an option) bool Open; } Room{ String roomRule; Vector3 roomPos; Vector3 dimensions; POD roomOrient; // 4 possible values List doors<Door>; } LevelManager{ float scale = 18f; List usedRooms<Room>; List openDoors<Door> bool Grid[][][]; Room CreateRoom(String rule, Vector3 position, POD Orient){ place recieved values based on rule fill in other data } Vector3 getDimenstions(String rule){ return dimensions of the room } RotateRoom(POD rotateAmount){ rotate all items in the room } MoveRoom(Room toBeMoved, POD orientataion, float distance){ move the position of the room based on inputs } GenerateMap(Vector3 size, Vector3 start, Vector3 end){ Grid = array[size.y][size.x][size.z]; Room floatingRoom; floatingRoom = Room.CreateRoom(S01, start, rand(4)); usedRooms.Add(floatingRoom); for each Door in floatingRoom.doors{ openDoors.Add(door); } // fill used grid spaces floatingRoom = Room.CreateRoom(S02, end, rand(4); usedRooms.Add(floatingRoom); for each Door in floatingRoom.doors{ openDoors.Add(door); } Vector3 nRoomLocation; Door workingDoor; string workingRoom; // fill used grid spaces // pick random door on the openDoors list workingDoor = /*randomDoor*/ // get a random rule nRoomLocation = workingDoor.position; // then I'm lost } } I know that I have to make sure for convergence (namely the end is reachable), and to do this until there are no more doors on the openDoors list. right now I am simply trying to get this to work in 2D (there are rules that introduce 3D), but I am working on a presumption that a rigorous algorithm can be trivially extended to 3D. EDIT: my thought pattern so far is to take an existing open door and then pick a random room (restrictions can be put in later) place that room's center at the doors location move the room in the direction of the doors orientation half the rooms dimension w/respect to that axis then test against the 3D array to see if all the grid points are open, or have been used, or if there is even space to put the room (caseEdge) if caseEdge (which can also occur in between rooms) then put the door on a toBeClosed list, and remove it from the open list (placing a wall or something there). then to do some kind of test that both the start, and the goal are connected, and reachable from each other (each room has nodes for AI, but I don't want to "have" to pull those out to accomplish this). but this logic has the problem for say the U, or L shaped rooms in my example, and then I also have a problem conceptually if the room needs to be rotated.

    Read the article

  • Different routing rules for a particular user using firewall mark and ip rule

    - by Paul Crowley
    Running Ubuntu 12.10 on amd64. I'm trying to set up different routing rules for a particular user. I understand that the right way to do this is to create a firewall rule that marks the packets for that user, and add a routing rule for that mark. Just to get testing going, I've added a rule that discards all packets as unreachable: # ip rule 0: from all lookup local 32765: from all fwmark 0x1 unreachable 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default With this rule in place and all firewall chains in all tables empty and policy ACCEPT, I can still ping remote hosts just fine as any user. If I then add a rule to mark all packets and try to ping Google, it fails as expected # iptables -t mangle -F OUTPUT # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK --set-mark 0x01 # ping www.google.com ping: unknown host www.google.com If I restrict this rule to the VPN user, it seems to have no effect. # iptables -t mangle -F OUTPUT # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK --set-mark 0x01 -m owner --uid-owner vpn # sudo -u vpn ping www.google.com PING www.google.com (173.194.78.103) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from wg-in-f103.1e100.net (173.194.78.103): icmp_req=1 ttl=50 time=36.6 ms But it appears that the mark is being set, because if I add a rule to drop these packets in the firewall, it works: # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j DROP -m mark --mark 0x01 # sudo -u vpn ping www.google.com ping: unknown host www.google.com What am I missing? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Problem with network policy rule in Network Policy Server

    - by Robert Moir
    Trying to configure RADIUS for a college network, and have run into the following frustration: I can't set an "AND" condition for group membership of authenticated objects in the network policy rules, e.g. I'm trying to create a NPS rule that says, essentially "IF user is a member of [list of user groups] And is authenticating from a computer in [wireless computer group] then allow access. The screenshot above is the rule I am having trouble with. It does not work as written. The rule underneath it, which is identical in every aspect except the conditions rule, does work. I've tried changing the non-working rule to define each set of groups as "Windows group" rather than specifically as machine and user groups, with no change. With the "faulty" rule enabled and the working one disabled, any attempt to login with a valid account from a machine that is in the wireless computers group gives a 6273 audit event in the windows event log: Reason code 66 - "the user attempted to use an authentication method that is not enabled on the matching network policy". Disabling the "faulty" rule, enabling the other rule and logging in with the same account and computer works just fine.

    Read the article

  • Three Fusion Applications Communities are Now Live

    - by cwarticki
    The Fusion Application Support Team (FAST) launched three communities on the My Oracle Support Community.  These communities provide another channel for customers to get the information about Fusion Applications that they need. The three Fusion Applications communities are: ·     Technical - FA community -- covers all the Fusion Applications technology stack and technical questions from users. ·      Applications and Business Processes community -- covers all the functional questions and issues raised by users for all Fusion Applications except HCM. ·      Fusion Applications HCM community -- covers the functional questions and issues raised by users for Fusion HCM product family. Good for Our Customers Customers participating in these communities can ask questions and get timely responses from Oracle Fusion Applications experts who monitor the communities. The customers can search the Fusion Applications Community contents for information and answers. They also can collaborate with other customers and benefit from the collective experience of the community -- especially from people like you. All customers and partners are invited to join My Oracle Support Community for Fusion Applications. We believe that participating in the Fusion Applications communities can be a win-win option for everyone. We invite you to become an active part of the thriving Fusion Applications communities and experience how this interesting and insightful dialog can benefit you. How to Join the Community Navigate to http://communities.oracle.com. Click the Profile Tab to register yourself and edit your profile. ·         You can subscribe to the Fusion Applications communities by editing your Community Subscriptions. ·         You can get RSS feeds for each of your subscribed communities from the same section.

    Read the article

  • Dealing with three Windows partitions in dual boot installation

    - by Tim
    For dual-boot installation of Ubuntu after Windows. Quoted from ubuntuguide If a Windows boot partition exists as a second NTFS partition, it should be left alone. If there is a Windows recovery partition also installed, it can also be left alone as long as there are only two NTFS partitions total on the hard drive (i.e. there is no NTFS boot partition as well). If there are a total of 3 NTFS partitions on the hard drive, then the third Windows NTFS partition (the recovery partition) should be removed after creating Recovery CDs from it (see here). In the last case where Windows has three partitions, I was wondering why it says the recovery partition shall be removed? Is it possible to keep the three and create another extended partition with several logical partitions for installing Ubuntu and dual-booting the two OSes? I plan to dual-boot install Ubuntu 10.04 with existing Windows 7. Following is the layout of the current partitions of my hard drive viewed from Windows 7: So must I remove the Lenovo_Recovery (Q:) partition for the same reason you give for the first question? Thanks and regards!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >